Mono [was: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horror Episodes in the Net.ArtHistory]

Rob Myers wrote:

> Quoting "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > We did think of using Mono ourselves, but it was for only a second -
> so
> > glad that we steered away from that decision…
>
> The effort from the mono project to make C# the preferred development
> platform
> for Linux so Microsoft can then wipe it out is one of the more bizarre
> bits of
> useful idiocy in the Free Software world.
>
> Given the community's refusal to dance off that particular cliff, my
> main
> concern with Mono is that Linden Labs have worked it into Second Life
> as the
> new scripting engine there. I'm not saying SL didn't need a new
> scripting
> engine, but it's another uncertainty over the future of SL. This makes
> me even
> more reluctant to target SL as a platform for virtual art.
>
> - Rob.
>
Well that's a real stretch. The Mono project was driven by Novel, and anyone who knows networks knows that Microsoft and Novel were not exactly on friendly terms.
Novel hoped to make their software work within the parameters used by webservice admins, and the answer was use C# (sneak in under the elephant while it's sleeping).
C# is still a cleaner approach to object oriented programming, and we can thank Anders Hejlsberg (the creator of Turbo Pascal and Borland Delphi) for that.
The paranoia is great fodder for the Linux accolytes, but it's silly and not factual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp
There's a good reason for Second Life to adopt it. Regardless of the platform, the scripting and programming are easy to debug and test.
This should get things rolling.
Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

> The paranoia is great fodder for the Linux accolytes, but it's silly and not factual.

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Microsoft.27s_patents

- Rob.

Rob Myers wrote:

> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> > The paranoia is great fodder for the Linux accolytes, but it's silly
> and not factual.
>
> http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Microsoft.27s_patents
>
> - Rob.
from the linspire listserv ( and you were worried about who? it's the corporate nature of capital to take everything it can)
QUOTE:

Support," an Oxymoron

by Kevin Carmony

October 26th, 2006

For weeks, rumors that Oracle was developing (or acquiring) its own version of Linux had been circulating throughout the industry, driving down Red Hat's stock. Yesterday, the speculation ended when Oracle's chief executive, Larry Ellison, announced in his keynote speech at the company's Oracle OpenWorld conference, that Oracle will offer full support services for Red Hat's version of the Linux open-source operating system. They're basically stripping off Red Hat's brand, slapping theirs on, and cutting the price to loss leader levels.


You get what you pay for…
Red Hat #1,Oracle #39.
Red Hat's stock dropped over 15% in after market trading on this news, and was down over 25% at the time of this letter. Wall Street seems to always overreact anytime a big company says they are going to do what a smaller pioneer company has been doing. History is replete with examples of this. Small, entrepreneurial company makes good, big company steps into the space with the big dollars, marketing, sales force and infrastructure, the market then predicts demise for smaller company. How does this turn out most of the time? Very well…for those who run out and buy stock in the smaller company. More often than not, it turns out to be more bark than bite. (Anyone remember Sun's Java Desktop Linux? =)

Since when has Oracle been interested in saving IT departments money? Since when has Oracle been known for offering quality support? This news is a bit like Hershey's saying they are going into the health food business. Buyer beware.

I'm happy to see Oracle endorse server Linux to the level of wanting to offer support for it, as it provides yet more evidence of the importance and prominent place FOSS Linux plays on database servers today. However, I believe Oracle will never come close to achieving the level of Linux support that RedHat already provides. For the last two years, Red Hat has topped the CIO Insight Survey. Where is Oracle? This year they were at #39! This is even worse than Microsoft at #31. Oracle's 39th spot is down from their previously sad showings at #28 and #30, for the prior two years. You'd think for the kind of money Oracle charges, they'd be at least in the top ten. Just think what kind of support you'll get with this loss leader pricing. Oracle was, however, ranked high on one of the charts, coming in at #2: "Companies With Highest Percentage of POOR RATINGS."


What I really like about this news, however, is it may get more people considering FOSS database solutions. Oracle has a lot more to lose than gain. How much can Oracle add to their bottom line by supporting Linux? Maybe it would become one or two percentage points for them, if that? However, what if the blurring of lines backfires on Oracle, and instead of everyone considering Oracle to support their Linux, they consider using open source software solutions and vendors for their database? They should. I'd have been a lot more excited had I read that Red Hat was moving more aggressively into the database area than I am about Oracle moving into the Linux support space.

Actually, I'm sure that's what started this process…Red Hat acquiring JBoss. This upset Larry Ellison, so he's stomping his feet, but the gun he chose to fire back with, "Oracle support," doesn't have any bullets. Threatening Red Hat using Oracle's support is like bringing a water pistol to a gun fight.

Rather than running out and switching Linux vendors, I'd encourage CIO's to consider rethinking their database options.

I should disclose that I purchased Red Hat stock this morning.

- Kevin